british dependencies

[reddevil]

this may sound a rather odd question but what do you think should be done with the battered remnants of the empire? of course we could argue for their independence on anti-imperialist grounds but most of them are so tiny that independence would be unworkable. I suppose there could be an annexation: bermuda to canada, the channel islands to the UK and so on. But as the inhabitants of these territories are a distinct people such a thing may be seen as opressive. The full list of dependencies here:
Jersey
Guernsey
Isle of man
British antarctic territory
Gibraltar
bermuda
Falklands islands
Cayman islands
British virgin islands
British indian ocean territory (the inhabitants were illegally expelled)
British antarctic territory
Montserrat
Pitcairm islands
Saint helena
Anguilla
South georgia and the south sandwich islands
Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (illegally seized from cyprus)

[Bitter Ashes]

I say it's up to the inhabitants of these places to deciede thier own fates. Gibrahltar recently had a refferendum I believe.

[STJ]

I do as well.

[Invader Zim]

Places like the Isle of Man are relatively autonomous, with their own legislative body, anyway. Having come from there I can't say that there is a major call for complete independence.

[BobKKKindle$]

I say it's up to the inhabitants of these places to deciede thier own fates. Gibrahltar recently had a refferendum I believe. I don't think so at all. Marxists should not be guided by bourgeois conceptions of justice and morality, i.e. we should not assume that a particular situation, such as a given territory being under the control of an imperialist state, is morally justified or worthy or our support just because a majority of the people who are directly involved in that situation (the inhabitants of the territory in question, if we are talking about territorial sovereignty) happen to support the maintenance of the status quo. We are guided first and foremost by our analysis of what is in the interests of the global proletariat, and in particular what will enable the proletariat of every nation to cast off its nationalist prejudices and overthrow capitalism, as the first step towards the attainment of a socialist society. Therefore, the question we should be asking ourselves is not whether the majority of, say, Gibraltar's inhabitants still want to be part of Britain, but whether the British proletariat is more likely to develop revolutionary consciousness when these territories are still subject to the control of the British state, and considered Britain's property, or when these territories have been placed under the control of the nations from which they were originally taken - e.g. Spain, in the case of Gibraltar - even if a transfer of sovereignty takes place against the wishes of the inhabitants. If you adopt the bourgeois viewpoint, which involves a fetishization of democracy, and abstracting sovereignty from the history and dynamics of imperialism*, then you end up defending some very reactionary positions - for example, you would have to defend the actions of the British government during the Malvinas Conflict and call for the military defeat of an oppressed nation because the majority of the islanders (a population of colonial settlers) did not want to be part of Argentina, and supported the British invasion. You might even end up defending Israel's presence in the occuppied territories on the grounds that the settlers would never decide to leave or surrender their stolen land voluntarily, and so government efforts to make settlers leave (as occurred in Gaza in 2005) are immoral.

* An obvious case in point is Diego Garcia, otherwise known as the British Indian Ocean Territory. As the OP points out, the original inhabitants of the island were forcibly expelled by the British state through a combination of physical coercion and deception, and today the island is being used as a military base, to support the British occupation of Afghanistan, and safeguard Britain's broader interests in the Middle East. If you asked most of the island's inhabitants today then they would obviously want to be part of Britain and retain their current function as a military base, because the current population is overwhelmingly made up of military personnel who are happy to accept the genocide carried out against the original inhabitants - most of whom are currently living in poverty, mainly in Mauritius, with little hope of ever being able to return to their homes, in much the same way as Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries. This clearly demonstrates that we cannot isolate issues of sovereignty from the history of imperialism, and Marxists should actively call for the expulsion of all the settlers who are currently living on Diego Garcia, with immediate reparations for the original islanders.

[Invader Zim]

for example, you would have to defend the actions of the British government during the Malvinas Conflict and call for the military defeat of an oppressed nation because the majority of the islanders (a population of colonial settlers) did not want to be part of Argentina, and supported the British invasion.

You have an odd interpretation of those historical events Bob. Argentina during the period in question, was run by a quasi-fascist dictatorship whose survival was dependent upon an aggressive proto-imperialist foreign policy, and that dictatorship invaded the islands in a bid to extend its dwindling lifespan. I fail to see how any coherant analysis of those historical facts supports the notion that either the British, or Argentinian, people were liable to gain revolutionary consciousness as a result of prolonging the brutal dictatorship in Argentina; at the expense of the self-determination of those individuals actually willing to live on those rocks.

And the issue isn't about defending the actions of the British government. I doubt many here would support the British decision to respond to said dictatorship's aggression in kind, any more than it would support the actions of the dictatorship in question; which incidentally, you seem dangerously close to doing.

[reddevil]

Galtieri was certainly a butcher and a brute but that doesn't take away the fact that the islands are clearly Argentinean territory. I fully support the return of land to its original owners (provided such confiscation took place in the recent past, i'm not talking about returning shetland!). However, in territories such as saint helena where no indigenous population exists, affairs become more complicated.

[BobKKKindle$]

You have an odd interpretation of those historical events Bob.

I don't deny that the Galtieri regime was authoritarian and anti-worker, but this has no impact whatsoever on the position that Marxists should have taken on the legitimacy of British sovereignty, or the Malvinas Conflict, in the same way that the reactionary orientation of the Saddam's government in Iraq had no bearing on our opposition to the Iraq War, and our support for the resistance struggle against the occupying forces. I also agree that the invasion of the Malvinas was partly motivated by a desire to strengthen the position of the Argentine government and so in that respect it is unlikely that the invasion would have led to the overthrow of the regime, or the strengthening of progressive forces inside Argentina, had it been able to succeed. What I do maintain, however, is that it was not in the interests of British or Argentine workers for the British government to succeed in its military response to the invasion, and for that reason, although there was never any reason for Marxists to support the initial invasion, or lend any kind of political support to the Argentine government, Marxists did have an obligation to call for the defeat of British imperialism at the hands of the Argentine state, despite our political opposition to both. This was the position of the SWP at the time, and it was the right position. The British victory did have political impacts inside Britain - most notably it allowed Thatcher to establish her credentials as a loyal defender of Britain's imperial interests in the eyes of the electorate, as well as the rest of her party, directly leading to her being re-elected in 1983 with an increased majority, which signalled a further defeat for a working class that was already on the defensive and throughly disorientated.


I doubt many here would support the British decision to respond to said dictatorship's aggression in kind, any more than it would support the actions of the dictatorship in question; which incidentally, you seem dangerously close to doing.

It's all very well to say that the decision of Galtieri to invade was reactionary and also condemn the British response, but the real question that Marxists faced (and will always face in every conflict between an oppressed nation and imperialist power) is what the best outcome is for the working-class, i.e. to whom should we give military support?

[Dr Mindbender]

@ OP

Northern Ireland belongs on your list.

[reddevil]

@ OP

Northern Ireland belongs on your list.

I wasn't denying the opression of Ireland. It's just that the six counties aren't a colony in the formal sense and are capable of functioning independently. Whereas the territories i mentioned all have such a small area and population that it would be impractical for them to become sovereign states.

[Invader Zim]

I fully support the return of land to its original owners (provided such confiscation took place in the recent past, i'm not talking about returning shetland!)

And there lies the problem from a legal point of view. For the bulk of human history the islands have been largely uninhabited, and prior to the establishment of a colony by the French in the mid 18th century was only periodically inhabited by pirates and fishermen whose stay on the islands was of course nomadic in nature. The settlements on the islands, established by various imperial parties (French, Spanish, British) from that point (1764) until 1833 were relatively short lived in nature. To this date the current British occupation, for lack of a better word, is the only attempt at settling the islands that has had any serious longevity. As a result it is rather difficult to restore the islands to their origional owners, because prior to 1764 there weren't any.


but this has no impact whatsoever on the position that Marxists should have taken on the legitimacy of British sovereignty, or the Malvinas Conflict,
On the former you are correct, it does not dictate the legitimacy of British control of the islands. But on the latter, it most certainly has an impact. There is no reason for a leftist to offer military, political or moral support to a quasi-fascist regime that has invaded a group of islands, stripped the inhabitants of their self-determination, simply to extend its lifespan. In offering such support you actively encourage, and excuse, militant and expansionist fascist nationalism, as well as directly aid and support the continued existence of the regime in question.

And of course the Iraq issue is not incomparable, as the circumstances, and historical context, were utterly different.


What I do maintain, however, is that it was not in the interests of British or Argentine workers for the British government to succeed in its military response to the invasion, and for that reason, although there was never any reason for Marxists to support the initial invasion, or lend any kind of political support to the Argentine government, Marxists did have an obligation to call for the defeat of British imperialism at the hands of the Argentine state, despite our political opposition to both.I disagree. By supporting Galtieri's invasion, the only possible people Marxists could benefit would be those in a position of power within the regime; and that would be at the expense of Argentinian workers, who would have had to suffer under the regime for longer, and the islands' population. The Argentinian and British workers stood absolutely nothing to gain from success by either the British or Argentinian military. In fact they stood only to lose.

But of course this is all rather academic, I doubt it is likely that we will see a similar scenario, involving that kind of historical context, again.


The British victory did have political impacts inside Britain - most notably it allowed Thatcher to establish her credentials as a loyal defender of Britain's imperial interests in the eyes of the electorate, as well as the rest of her party, directly leading to her being re-elected in 1983 with an increased majority, which signalled a further defeat for a working class that was already on the defensive and throughly disorientated.This is the only point you have made that commands any strength. But just as it isn't in the interests of the british or Argentinian people to support the galtieri regime, it certainly wouldn't have been in their interests to support Thatcher's equally transparent bid for continued political longevity. Indeed that point would be yet another reason to oppose the initial Argentine invasion.

Ultimately it strikes me that the progressive position would be to thoroughly oppose both regimes.

[PRC-UTE]

I wasn't denying the opression of Ireland. It's just that the six counties aren't a colony in the formal sense and are capable of functioning independently. Whereas the territories i mentioned all have such a small area and population that it would be impractical for them to become sovereign states.

Stormont has no real powers, though. most important issues are decided in London.

[Bitter Ashes]

Aye. I've had my eyes opened to that bit at least. The Northern Ireland assembly doesnt really offer anything more than the most trivial say over the running of Northern Ireland. That aside, they have just as little say in how the country's run as anyone in what was once Northumbria having a say in how it's run i.e. having to rely on failing representive democracy in Westminister.

[la lucha sigue]

I wasn't denying the opression of Ireland. It's just that the six counties aren't a colony in the formal sense and are capable of functioning independently. Whereas the territories i mentioned all have such a small area and population that it would be impractical for them to become sovereign states.

Northern Ireland is as much a colony as any of the other places that you've listed. The definition of a colony doesn't come from the ability or otherwise to function as a separate sovereign state. However, the larger the colony the larger the resistance has generally been against colonial status and most of the larger colonies have now achieved some form of independence.

The structures in occupied Ireland are prime examples of colonial structures. The laws are primarily based on those of the colonial power, with autonomy given only where the natives can be trusted to exercise it in accordance with the interests of their rulers. The rights of the indigenous population are made subservient to those of the settlers. The very existance of the colony is maintained by a military presence. And it has probably the most evident sign of colonial status, an active resistance against its colonial master!

And we should not limit our understanding of colonialism in ireland to the north. The whole country is denied its independence by the occupation of an integral part of it. 1/3 of the irish population live under occupation! Partition distorts economic and social relations througout the country, including how the working class organise. Ireland, the whole of it, remains a colony.

[Bilan]

It's all very well to say that the decision of Galtieri to invade was reactionary and also condemn the British response, but the real question that Marxists faced (and will always face in every conflict between an oppressed nation and imperialist power) is what the best outcome is for the working-class, i.e. to whom should we give military support?

That's not a real question, and the answer is even less real. Who we give military support to is meaningless bullshit, considering that they're intent on doing it with or without the support of you and your party, or anyone elses, for that matter.
Assuming, however, that they give a toss on who you give your 'military support' to, your question is fundamentally anti-working class in nature in that these are imperialist wars, and they are in the interests of the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. Infact, these wars are means of oppressing and slaughtering working class people.
For a socialist, the support goes to neither, as it is an imperialist conflict. Our support goes where it was born: in the working class, and in the interests of the class.

[Invader Zim]

Northern Ireland is as much a colony as any of the other places that you've listed.

But reddevil was not listing 'colonies', s/he was listing crown dependencies which are very different in their situation from places like Ireland.

[la lucha sigue]

An imperialist war is between imperialist powers. The Malvinas conflict was between an imperialsist power and a less developed nation, albeit a fascist dictatorship, so i don't think its fair to call it an imperialist war. Still, you are right to say that the proletariat in neither country benefitted from this conflict.

As a socialist living under British occupation my support was clearly with the Argentinians! The proletariat in Ireland would have been advanced greatly by an Argentinian victory. We certainly took much inspiration at the capacity of a less developed country to stand up to British military might. Of course, we would have been happier to see the Argentinian proletariat rise up, defeat fascism and then go on to kick the imperialists out too!

[BobKKKindle$]

Indeed that point would be yet another reason to oppose the initial Argentine invasion.You're conflating two different issues here - how Marxists should have responded to the original invasion, and the position that Marxist should have taken once the conflict was underway, following the British response. You are right in pointing out that the Argentine invasion should have been condemned because it was designed to strengthen an authoritarian government and boost its anti-imperialist credentials in the eyes of the Argentine proletariat, but during the course of the conflict itself adopting a "neutral, both sides are equally at fault" position would be synonymous with accepting the British response as legitimate, and assuming that the outcome of the conflict is not important for the international proletariat. As anti-imperialists, we are not required to support every single strategy and tactic that is used by a resistance movement or the government of an oppressed nation, but in the event of a military conflict we do have an obligation to support the defeat of the imperialists, because we recognize that proletarian revolution is impossible as long as the workers of oppressed nations continue to live under the occupation of an imperialist power, and as long as the workers of imperialists states are ideologically linked to the bourgeoisie through imperialism. A more recent case that demonstrates this is the activity of Hamas in Gaza - many Marxists would condemn Hamas for launching rockets into southern Israel because these attacks lead to the deaths of Israeli citizens in Sderot and other cities, and, more importantly, gives the Israeli state an ideological pretext to invade and conduct attacks against the civilian population of Gaza, resulting in terrible human suffering. Despite this condemnation, however, these Marxists would also agree that if Israel does invade Gaza, then, regardless of our opposition to the tactics that Hamas may have used prior to the conflict, as well as our political opposition to Hamas as a reactionary organization, we should still support military defeat for Israel at the hands of Hamas, because it is not in the interests of Israeli or Palestinian workers for Israel to score a victory against an anti-imperialist force, as such a victory would further undermine the class struggle inside both nations, and strengthen Israel's role as a proxy for the imperialist powers.

As always, it's worth pointing out that when Marxists talk about "military support" in relation to a conflict between an imperialist state and an oppressed nation we simply mean that we would prefer the latter to score a military victory; it does not mean that we identify with the politics of the anti-imperialist movement or government in question, or approove of everything they do.


Assuming, however, that they give a toss on who you give your 'military support' to, your question is fundamentally anti-working class in nature in that these are imperialist wars, and they are in the interests of the bourgeoisie, not the proletariatFirstly, you can't simply assert that all wars under capitalism are conflicts between imperialist powers. Gaza is incapable of being an imperialist power because the economy is in a state of total collapse, such that the bourgeoisie is almost non-existent, let alone imperialist, and so when there is a conflict between Israel and the people of Gaza I don't see how we can possibly characterize that conflict as a clash between two imperialist powers, and decide not to take sides on that basis. The Left-Communist assertion that all wars are inter-imperialist wars is derived from the economic analysis of Rosa Luxemburg who argued that the capitalist class of any country can only accumulate capital and maintain its material privileges by looking beyond the borders of its own nation state and exporting capital overseas - in other words, she argued that all countries are actually or potentially imperialist. This analysis, however appealing on a superficial level, has been thoroughly refuted. Secondly, and in connection with the above, wars between rival states are not simply a matter of rival factions of the global bourgeoisie competing for power and resources because, in nations that are subject to imperialist oppression, such as Gaza, and the people of Iraq, the presence of the occupying force represents the single biggest threat to the wellbeing of workers and their communities, and, given that it is the most visible and direct source of pain, as long as the occupying forces remains in place, the anti-imperialist struggle will be the focal point of political activity for workers who bear the brunt of imperialism. The bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation, however, is fundamentally incapable of carrying the national liberation struggle to its ultimate conclusion because it recognizes that the victory of a mass political movement will inevitably pose a threat to its own position, as a confident working class seeks to move beyond the bounds of mere political independence and challenge economic imperialism by calling for the expropriation of private property, thereby endangering the so-called "national bourgeoisie". This is why Marxists support anti-imperialist struggles, even when they are being led by reactionary organizations such as Hamas.

[la lucha sigue]

But reddevil was not listing 'colonies', s/he was listing crown dependencies which are very different in their situation from places like Ireland.

the list was of crown dependencies, but the subject was "what to do with the remnants of the empire". The empire is very much alive and well. In a discussion about how to deal with colonial territories, there must be a recongition of the different forms that colonisation takes. The form in ireland is very different from that in diego garcia, gibralter or the isle of man, but the dynamic is the same. It is the subjugation of the indigenous population, or indeed subjugation of the settler population by the colonial power. In places the two groups are set against each other, and in places the indigenous population is simply forcibly transported (there were also huge transportations from ireland at an earlier stage of its colonisation). Colonisation has by its nature also involved transportation of the colonial power's population to the colony. Even under the bourgeois system of international law such "population transfers" are unlawful, but they underpin the colonial system.

Indigenous or settler complicity is not a factor. We should be encouraging consciousness amongst the populations in all these colonies that living under a colonial system is a subjugation of their rights, just as we encourage consciousness amongst any oppressed people that they should overthrow their oppressors.

[Devrim]

This analysis, however appealing on a superficial level, has been thoroughly refuted.

I love the way that Bob deals with arguments that he can't respond to; by asserting that they have been 'thoroughly refuted'. It completely convinces me everytime.

Devrim

[Demogorgon]

Galtieri was certainly a butcher and a brute but that doesn't take away the fact that the islands are clearly Argentinean territory. I fully support the return of land to its original owners (provided such confiscation took place in the recent past, i'm not talking about returning shetland!). However, in territories such as saint helena where no indigenous population exists, affairs become more complicated.
I fail to see why the islands should be seen as legitimately Argentinean any more than they are legitimately British. We have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of defending bourgeoisie states claim to territorial sovereignty against the interests of actual people.

Appalling behaviour by Britain regarding the islands does not change the fact that forcibly placing the islands under Argentinian control against the will of the inhabitants would be an act of oppression. Surely people should be autonomous and able to refuse to live under the control of any given state against their will? When they actually have the opportunity to refuse, surely they should take it?

With regards to the claim that Britain seized the island against the will of the original habitants. That is suspect at best. While it appears to have been visited by indigenous inhabitants of South America, it was never settled, or if it was, only in the distant past. When the Europeans found it, it was empty and prime territory for setting up outposts to further imperialism. Throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was variously claimed and fought over by various imperialist powers including France, Britain, Spain, Argentina and latterly America, each side periodically expelling the previous inhabitants and establishing their own outposts. When Britain took in in 1833, it was just the latest in a long line to do it, and indeed it was mostly empty at that point anyway, the Americans having destroyed the Argentinean outpost there without settling on the islands themselves. Argentina's lingering claim is the result of losing an inter-imperialist war and there is no reason to prefer its claim over Britain's.

When it comes down to it, the inhabitants should be able to choose their own fate, and they do not want to go under the control of the Argentinean state (which incidentally would be a lot more "hands on" than Britain. And they certainly didn't want to go under said control when Argentina was a military dictatorship.

For those still convinced that the Falklands should be returned to Argentina, ask who benefits from it? Certainly not the inhabitants of the islands, not the people of Argentina either. All that benefit are the Argentinean elite (who get to fulfill their own imperialist claim) and the British elite who can get shot of an expensive to maintain outpost that leads to nothing but diplomatic tension. What reason is there to support that?

[Bilan]

Firstly, you can't simply assert that all wars under capitalism are conflicts between imperialist powers.

Firstly, I didn't assert all wars are imperialist wars. I made clear that a war between two imperialist powers was infact, an imperialist war. If you would like to contest this, please do, but you may find yourself in a bit of a pickle.



Gaza is incapable of being an imperialist power because the economy is in a state of total collapse, such that the bourgeoisie is almost non-existent, let alone imperialist, and so when there is a conflict between Israel and the people of Gaza I don't see how we can possibly characterize that conflict as a clash between two imperialist powers, and decide not to take sides on that basis.

You don't have to 'take a side'. The question for Marxist's is not 'Whos side to take'. Most of us already know whom we support(can you guess?), but the real question is what will be the impact of this war on the proletariat, is it in their interests, or, like Gaza, is it setting them up for a perpetual blood bath, which is diametrically opposed to their existence (as they are being slaughtered!), and their interests as a class.
Your "analysis" is riddled with your fetishizim for popular movements. There is no substance to the direction, no real goal for their emancipation, just wishy-washy apologism backed up by patronising solidarity acts, playing along like a good populist by supporting nationalist struggles and the like, all because there are alot of people. There's no real substance to these politics your spouting.
The war in the Gaza strip is only perpetuating the oppression because Palastinians are isolated. Their liberation requires it to transcend religious and national boundaries, and that means it needs to take on a proletarian character. Bourgeois "socialists" giving their "military support" to organisations which are perpetuating their suffering does nothing to break through these confinements.



The Left-Communist assertion that all wars are inter-imperialist wars is derived from the economic analysis of Rosa Luxemburg who argued that the capitalist class of any country can only accumulate capital and maintain its material privileges by looking beyond the borders of its own nation state and exporting capital overseas - in other words, she argued that all countries are actually or potentially imperialist.

Are you really going to try and disprove that?
Furthermore, I didn't assert that all wars are inter-imperialist wars. I would advise against putting words in other peoples mouths.



This analysis, however appealing on a superficial level,

:lol:



has been thoroughly refuted.

Ah, and what a smashing contribution you've made to its refutation.



Secondly, and in connection with the above, wars between rival states are not simply a matter of rival factions of the global bourgeoisie competing for power and resources because, in nations that are subject to imperialist oppression, such as Gaza, and the people of Iraq

Did you just compare Gaza and Iraq? You're kidding, right? You do know what Iraq was prior to the invasion? You do realize that what it was, as a dominant power in the Middle East, which was expanding. You do realize that the invasion of Iraq by the US constitutes an inter-imperialist war, right?



, the presence of the occupying force represents the single biggest threat to the wellbeing of workers and their communities, and, given that it is the most visible and direct source of pain, as long as the occupying forces remains in place, the anti-imperialist struggle will be the focal point of political activity for workers who bear the brunt of imperialism.

Yes, and no one here is supporting the occupying force.



The bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation, however, is fundamentally incapable of carrying the national liberation struggle to its ultimate conclusion because it recognizes that the victory of a mass political movement will inevitably pose a threat to its own position, as a confident working class seeks to move beyond the bounds of mere political independence and challenge economic imperialism by calling for the expropriation of private property, thereby endangering the so-called "national bourgeoisie".

The bourgeoisie was never capable of carrying out a national liberation struggle on its own. That is a given. National liberation struggles require the support of the masses to succeed.



This is why Marxists support anti-imperialist struggles, even when they are being led by reactionary organizations such as Hamas.

No. That is not why, and not all Marxists hold your vulgar political line. Your entire an analysis is bogus, especially the quote above this one, in which you make an a-historical claim, saying 'The bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation, however, is fundamentally incapable of carrying the national liberation struggle to its ultimate conclusion because it recognizes that the victory of a mass political movement will inevitably pose a threat to its own position, as a confident working class seeks to move beyond the bounds of mere political independence and challenge economic imperialism'.
This is false. Firstly, as I said above, the bourgeoisie was never capable of it. Secondly, the National Liberation struggle is speareheaded by the bourgeoisie and in its interests. Whether it holds the ideas of Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité or a blood stained red flag, the content remains the same. It is a conglomeration of the masses of a nation state, in which class politics are smothered. The presumptious claim you make that it will lead to a 'confident' working class seeking 'political indepdence' has more historical accuracy, but negates the fact that they wont win (see On the Paris Commune, Marx, K. for a good example). Power has been consolidated in the hands of the bourgeoisie through their struggle which the proletariat fought for, and the class struggle has been smothered by a national struggle. It is likely that the proletariat will revolt following this (as has often occurred), but that it will stop the bourgeoisie from undertaking this struggle is pure bullshit.
Furthermore, supporting these struggles, because of their nature, because of their smothering of the class struggle, because of their suppression of class interests, is completely counter-poised to the interests of the liberation of the proletariat. Our liberation comes from a struggle which transcends boundaries (national, religious, or otherwise) because our class has no boundaries - it is everywhere.

[la lucha sigue]

When it comes down to it, the inhabitants should be able to choose their own fate, and they do not want to go under the control of the Argentinean state (which incidentally would be a lot more "hands on" than Britain. And they certainly didn't want to go under said control when Argentina was a military dictatorship.



We have to be wary of allowing illegitimate population transfer to dictate terms of sovereignty. The question of when such transfer transforms into legitimate residence is an even trickier question. The population currently in the Malvinas are most definitely there as a result of colonial processes. I'm not sure that Argentinian settlement on the islands could equally be considered colonial. Natural expansion does not necessarily equate with imperialism, although it is part of the process that leads to it.

[Invader Zim]

I'm not sure that Argentinian settlement on the islands could equally be considered colonial. Of course Argentinan settlement would be the result of 'colonialism', Argentina is a result of colonial expansion. And the fact is it would be expanding into an area already occupied by an existing group with its own social and political allegiance.


The proletariat in Ireland would have been advanced greatly by an Argentinian victory. What a joke. The Explain what the Irish proletariat stood to gain from the an extension to the life span of a quasi-fascist regime?

At best all it would have done is briefly warmed the hearts of those opposed to the British state. But that never put food on the table.

[la lucha sigue]

Of course Argentinan settlement would be the result of 'colonialism'

of course, that explains it!

what indigenous groups were there when Argentina established their first outpost there? actually, what indigenous groups were there when they "invaded" again. Trying to establish a population on an island that has no indigenous population is not imperialism. Argentinians have the best claim of being indigenous to the Malvinas, well indigenous argentinians do anyway!

warmed hearts make better revolutionaries!

[Invader Zim]

Argentinians have the best claim of being indigenous to the Malvinas,

And what, exactly, draws you to that conclusion?


Trying to establish a population on an island that has no indigenous population is not imperialism.

Sinse when has imperialism been defined by the ethnic origion of the people in the region you happen to be annexing?

[BobKKKindle$]

Firstly, I didn't assert all wars are imperialist wars. I made clear that a war between two imperialist powers was infact, an imperialist war. If you would like to contest this, please do, but you may find yourself in a bit of a pickle.You've just asserted that Iraq is an imperialist country so I find it hard to believe that you'd see any military conflict under capitalism as a conflict between an oppressed nation and an imperialist power, and not a conflict between two or more imperialist powers (i.e. an inter-imperialist war) given that Iraq does not meet any of the features that Marxists see as integral to the definition of what constitutes an imperialist state - the dominance of finance capital relative to the production of commodities, the accumulation of surplus value through the exploitation of other countries, and so on. I think one of the key problems with the Left-Communist analysis of imperialism is that those who agree with this analysis such as yourself frequently assume that if a less developed country acts in an aggressive way towards surrounding countries, as Iraq did, or if a country seeks to exercise its regional interests by giving support to a political movement, such as Hezbollah in the case of Iran, then the country in question must be imperialist, such that any conflicts involving that country must be inter-imperialist conflicts. I have even seen Left-Communists argue that the conflict in Gaza was an inter-imperialist conflict on the grounds that Hamas received help from rich donors in Saudi Arabia, and therefore can be considered a proxy of the Saudi government, and an imperialist force. The problem with this perspective is that it equates geopolitical influence with a country being imperialist - a notion that is more commonly associated with bourgeois liberalism, not Marxism.

Now, let me try and sift through your rhetoric and locate some content...


You don't have to 'take a side'. The question for Marxist's is not 'Whos side to take'I think all Marxists, even Trotskyists such as myself, who you probably do not consider Marxists at all, would acknowledge that conflicts that involve questions of nationalism and territorial sovereignty are features of the capitalist system in that they are directly linked to imperialism and will be done away with once capitalism has been overthrown and replaced with a socialist society. This does not mean, however, that we can simply brush these conflicts aside and assume that which side is victorious will have no impact on the class struggle, or that the proletariat never has anything to gain from military conflicts under capitalism, because, to paraphrase Lenin, socialist revolutions never take the form of an unambiguous conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - instead if we look at cases of intense class struggle and political unrest during the course of the last century we often find that these cases originated in processes that initially seemed to have nothing to do with class struggle whatsoever, as exemplified by the 1905 uprising in Russia, which began as a march demanding that the Tsar protect workers against the bourgeoisie, but developed into what almost became a socialist revolution, because the working class created its own form of political and economic administration in the form of Soviets, and the bourgeoisie revealed its weakness (and incapacity to carry out its historic task of winning constitutional liberties and bourgeois democracy, as Trotsky acknowledged in the aftermath of the event, in Results and Prospects) by siding with the autocracy. Similarly, the "revolution of flowers" that brought down fascism in Portugal and briefly threatened the power of the Portuguese bourgeoisie in 1974 broke out after a revolt in the army in Portuguese colonies, which was itself linked to anti-colonial struggles in Africa. The same principle is broadly true in the case of anti-imperialist struggles, as the victory of the oppressed nation will, as Trotsky argued in 'Anti-Imperialist struggle is Key to Liberation' "give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country [...] and at the same time deliver a blow to British [the context of Trotsky's remarks is the hypothetical situation of semi-fascist Brazil and Britain going to war] imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat". The Marxist policy of taking a side in military conflicts is analogous to our policy on trade unions - in the event of a struggle between a conservative leadership and a left-leaning section of the union bureaucracy that wants to gain control on the union and take action against employers, if only in pursuit of its own bureaucratic interests, Marxists would hope for the victory of the latter because we recognize that it would raise the intensity of the class struggle, even though we condemn the existence of bureaucrats inside trade unions and other working-class organizations, and hope that trade unions will eventually be rendered obsolete by the advent of communism.


You do realize that the invasion of Iraq by the US constitutes an inter-imperialist war, right?You say this as is if it's an obvious fact that nobody would ever dispute. See above.


The bourgeoisie was never capable of carrying out a national liberation struggle on its own. That is a given. National liberation struggles require the support of the masses to succeed. This wasn't what I argued at all. It's not just that a national-liberation struggle must inevitably involve the proletariat, if for no other reason than because the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation lacks sufficient numerical strength to take on an imperialist occupation all by itself, it's something much more important than that - the victory of the anti-imperialist struggle will always occur against the class interests of the bourgeoisie and will therefore depend on the ability of the proletariat to break away from its alliance with bourgeois democracy and conduct the struggle independently as a precursor to proletarian revolution. This was manifested most clearly in the division that occurred within the Irish Republican Movement after 1921 because the section of the movement that rejected the treaty and wanted to push for the liberation of the six countries as well as southern Ireland also represented the working-class component of the struggle.


Ah, and what a smashing contribution you've made to its refutation. I don't need to make any contributions because it's already been done. Check out Bukharin's 'Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital' (1925) for a start.

Oh, and if you're going to reply, try not to do it in the ridiculously hysterial tone that you addressed me with in the last post - comments like "you're kidding right" are unwarranted and unnecessary.

[Devrim]

I don't need to make any contributions because it's already been done. Check out Bukharin's 'Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital' (1925) for a start.

I have read it and wasn't particularly impressed. I don't think it refutes those arguments at all.

It is good to see though that you are using the arguments of the Stalinists and their allies against the left though, Bob. This is the same Bukharin that wrote 'Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? (1925)', which laid the theoretical justification for Stalin's 'theory' of socialism in one country.

Bukharin at this point was on the right-wing of the party in alliance with Stalin's 'centre', and by 1926 was part of the ruling group. 'Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital' along with 'Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat?' provided the theoretical basis upon which the arguments against the internationalist left in favour of socialism in one country were constructed.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

It is good to see though that you are using the arguments of the Stalinists and their allies against the left though, Bob

Yet, in 1918, shortly after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Bolsheviks witnessed the creation of a Left-Communist opposition that briefly seized control of the Moscow party organization and even published two issues of a new journal entitled 'Kommunist', which criticized Lenin's decision to use bourgeois specialists and introduce one-man management as emergency measures during the civil war, and was latter criticized by Lenin in his pamplet 'On "Left" Infantilism and the Petty-Bourgeois Spirit', only to fade away during the summer of the same year. Interestingly, Bukharin was on the editorial board along with Radek and several other left-leaning members of the party so we can only assume that Bukharin managed to transform himself from a loyal internationalist (in the eyes of Left Communists, that is) into an apologist for Stalinism.

[Devrim]

Yet, in 1918, shortly after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Bolsheviks witnessed the creation of a Left-Communist opposition that briefly seized control of the Moscow party organization and even published two issues of a new journal entitled 'Kommunist', which criticized Lenin's decision to use bourgeois specialists and introduce one-man management as emergency measures during the civil war, and was latter criticized by Lenin in his pamplet 'On "Left" Infantilism and the Petty-Bourgeois Spirit', only to fade away during the summer of the same year. Interestingly, Bukharin was on the editorial board along with Radek and several other left-leaning members of the party so we can only assume that Bukharin managed to transform himself from a loyal internationalist (in the eyes of Left Communists, that is) into an apologist for Stalinism.

Undoubtedly, yes. Bukharin at the time of the revolution and its immediate aftermath stood on the left-wing of the party, and it is true that he ended up apologising for Stalinism.

Individuals can change their political position, and can change from the side of the working class to that of the bourgeoisie. I don't think that that makes Bukharin's work when he was a left communist militant invalid. Individuals are not infallible.

My point isn't that you are using the arguments of somebody who later ended up justifying Stalinism. My point is that the argument itself that you are suggesting 'thoroughly refuted' Luxemborg's argument is the Stalinist argument, and part of the theoretical work which justified socialism in one country.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

That is a strange argument Bob. It is like arguing that fascism is good because Missoulini used to be at one time in the left wing of the PSI.

[redarmyfaction38]

Yet, in 1918, shortly after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Bolsheviks witnessed the creation of a Left-Communist opposition that briefly seized control of the Moscow party organization and even published two issues of a new journal entitled 'Kommunist', which criticized Lenin's decision to use bourgeois specialists and introduce one-man management as emergency measures during the civil war, and was latter criticized by Lenin in his pamplet 'On "Left" Infantilism and the Petty-Bourgeois Spirit', only to fade away during the summer of the same year. Interestingly, Bukharin was on the editorial board along with Radek and several other left-leaning members of the party so we can only assume that Bukharin managed to transform himself from a loyal internationalist (in the eyes of Left Communists, that is) into an apologist for Stalinism.
that's an interesting take on events!
vis a vis stalin, fact is, he ordered the execution of the 600 leading bolsheviks.
end of.
he ordered the assassination of leon trotsky.
end of.
all oppossition was violently repressed, end of.
that's what haPPPENED, denying that is like the fascist denial of the "holocaust".
the FALKLANDS on the other hand is a different matter, what we had were two unpopular "democratic" govts. looking for a way to bolster their public support, galteiri decided to support a bunch of adventurists that planted the argentinian flag on a bunch of islands that the british govt. had previously decided to negotiate dual soveriegnty over.
thatcher, faced with public disorder at home, like galteria, decided winning a war would get them elected.
thatcher, aware of the anti fascist mentality of the british people after two world wars aND the anl resistance to home grown fascists, presented this war as an anti fascist war and the british people fell for it.
the likes of the swp however failed to cut across this illusion, choosing to side with argentininian imperialism against british imperialism.
the swps position was quite simply "support the former colonials against the british empire", unfortunately, this was an "ossified" position.
no longer did britain have an empire and argentina was a fully fledged capitalist state in its own right.
i'll post this and hold on the rest.

[Bilan]

Just out of curiosity, bob, have you actually read the Accumulation of Capital?
Something tells me this is much like the last person who ripped into Luxemburg for being a 'committed revolutionary, but was incorrect on many issues'. Turns out that they'd never read anything she'd said, but only what others had said.